linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] HID: Introduce .idle() to remove last usb dependence from hid-multitouch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAN+gG=HbQ_vUUkJS++9Vtb4Q+iYMp8Lt_2dRv3OdeOUvfwMGEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:01:24 +0100
From:	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>
To:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Stephane Chatty <chatty@...c.fr>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] HID: Introduce .idle() to remove last usb dependence
 from hid-multitouch

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Benjamin
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
> <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Well, this series of two patches aims at removing the dependence between usb
>> and hid-multitouch.
>> I put a RFC and not a patch as I'm not satisfied with the result:
>> - adding this callback for one use may not be accurate
>> - the parameters may not be good either (HID_REQ_SET_IDLE is the only valid
>>   value for now as noone seems to be using HID_REQ_GET_IDLE)
>> - the return value is clearly not very interesting.
>> - maybe we should just add HID_REQ_SET_IDLE to .request, but this will require
>>   a few changes in the parameters.
>>
>> The main purpose of this RFC was to share it with David this new ll callback, so
>> that we can have a global view of what is needed.
>
> I actually never read the specs for SET/GET_IDLE. The Bluetooth HID
> Profile deprecated these and I haven't seen a Bluetooth device that
> relies on it. Any reasons why I should implement them?

I don't want you to absolutely implement it. I just wanted to share it
with you because all the commands set/get report, set/get idle,
set/get protocol and set power are part of the "class specific
requests".
So I don't know if we should have distinct hid_hw_* calls for each of
them, or if we should implement a big hid_hw_request() function.

>
> Also, for things like UHID I think we can safely drop this request.

sure.

> Considering that, I think the patches can be applied as they are, so:
>   Reviewed-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>

Thanks.

>
> The Bluetooth HID Profile actually implements some other SUSPEND
> calls,  but these are supposed to be handled by the Bluetooth stack
> independently of the HID driver. So if there is no other magic going
> on with SET_IDLE, I'd just leave it for usbhid.
>
> (does anyone know whether i2c-hid support these?)

It does, but it's also marked as deprecated. :) So I don't want to
implement it either until we found weird devices requesting it.

Cheers,
Benjamin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/